Sunday, July 26, 2020

RSN: Norman Solomon Interview With Ro Khanna






Reader Supported News
26 July 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


RSN: Norman Solomon Interview With Ro Khanna
California Congressman and Vice Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Ro Khanna. (photo: Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News
Excerpt: "The most important thing – I believe – is taking back the White House in November. While I obviously supported Bernie and will continue to fight for progressive policies that have been championed by him, I have seen the former Vice President make genuine efforts to reach out to the progressives of the party and engage with them to hear their input."


Norman Solomon recently interviewed Congressman Ro Khanna for Reader Supported News:

: After three and a half years in the House, you’re widely seen as one of the leading progressives in Congress. How did that happen?
Ro Khanna: Firstly, I appreciate it. These progressive policies aren’t new. Look at Harry Truman, who ran on Medicare for All and won. What we’re seeing is a new generation of younger voters who are becoming more politically engaged in their communities because they are fed up with the way things have become. Senator Sanders managed to speak to their frustrations with the status quo in 2016. As co-chair of his campaign, I was proud to speak about the progressive policies that will move this country forward. 
Q: As the First Vice Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, how would you assess the strength of commitments to bedrock progressive principles among House Democrats?
Ro Khanna: We’re seeing the members in the Progressive Caucus grow, and more members within the party are joining in on our commitments to those principles. The progressive caucus got 93 votes – the most so far – against a bloated NDAA budget that ought to have reallocated money to other investments that create jobs like infrastructure and public health. Senator Sanders’ campaign also showed that more voters are embracing progressive policies, and members are starting to respond to those changes by casting more progressive votes and introducing progressive legislation. 
Q: Is it true that you don’t accept PAC money? And is it accurate to say that very few members of Congress refuse to take PAC donations?
Ro Khanna: That’s right. I pride myself on running a grassroots campaign without taking a dime from PACs or special interest groups. During my first term, I started the No PAC Caucus and have backed efforts to get dark money out of politics. Large corporations shouldn’t be allowed to pour large sums of money into political campaigns. Lobbyists and special interests shouldn’t dictate the actions of elected representatives. It should be the voice of the people that guides the decisions made in Congress. 
Q: Of course progressives widely and deeply understand the need to defeat Donald Trump – but at the same time, there’s enormous discontent with the kind of politics that Joe Biden represents. How do you see the Biden campaign and a prospective Biden presidency?
Ro Khanna: The most important thing – I believe – is taking back the White House in November. While I obviously supported Bernie and will continue to fight for progressive policies that have been championed by him, I have seen the former Vice President make genuine efforts to reach out to the progressives of the party and engage with them to hear their input. VP Biden knows that the only way he’ll be able to beat Donald Trump is by bringing the party together, and he has been working to do so. Let’s be clear about one thing, though. Progressives will not stop pushing for things like affordable housing, Medicare for All, and free college education regardless of whoever is in the Oval Office. 
Q: How would you assess the defeat of 16-term congressman Eliot Engel? And how might his disappearance as chair of the Committee affect what could be accomplished in the House?
Ro Khanna: I think it’s another example of what we’ve been seeing since Bernie Sanders ran for President in 2016. Voters are fundamentally shifting to more progressive candidates. I believe that the Foreign Affairs Committee will now take a more progressive foreign policy approach in the coming years. More members are starting to understand that foreign policy does not have to include conflict. Ultimately, the way business is done and the way conflicts play out between nations has changed dramatically in the past three decades. It’s time to have members not only on the committee but in Congress as a whole who understand the changes the world has undergone recently and who know how to position the United States to adapt to those changes so that we may still be a leader on the global stage. 
Q: What has it been like for you to be on the House Armed Services Committee?
Ro Khanna: Serving on the Armed Services Committee has been quite interesting. As Silicon Valley’s representative to Congress, I’m always looking for ways to bring Silicon Valley innovation to our armed services, particularly on the cybersecurity front. The NDAA first comes out of that committee before going to the full floor. Unfortunately, even with a Democratic majority in the House, our military budget has continued to grow larger and more bloated every year. I have continually pushed back against increasing the defense budget and will fight to instead invest money in social programs that move this country forward. 
Q: The terrible Saudi-led war on Yemen has continued with U.S. support, while you’ve been a congressional leader in efforts to stop it. How would you describe the current U.S. role – and what should constituents be urging their representatives and senators to do about it?
Ro Khanna: The United States has been giving logistical support and aid to the Saudi forces, which then kill innocent Yemeni citizens. There is support in Congress to end U.S. involvement with the Saud-led coalition in Yemen, and the very first War Powers Resolution was passed. This led to the Administration voluntarily suspending the refueling of Saudi planes and gave UN Envoy Griffiths a lot more leverage to bring peace to the region. Ultimately, the biggest factor in ending our involvement in Yemen is by taking back the White House in November. 
Q: What can you tell us about the extent of militaristic thinking among your colleagues in Congress?
Ro Khanna: Ultimately, there is a wide range of views in Congress regarding the United States’ role in foreign intervention. There are still those who hold hawkish views, but after being in the Middle East for so long, the tides are turning against an interventionist approach, like we saw with the War Powers Resolutions that were passed. More members of Congress understand that instead of pouring our resources into never-ending conflicts, we ought to be investing in our people here at home. Look at what happened at the beginning of the year when the president unilaterally launched an airstrike on an Iranian general. The rebuke from Congress was swift, and there is a growing consensus that the executive branch has expanded its unilateral military authority over the past two decades, in direct contrast to what the founders envisioned when they stated unequivocally that only Congress, and not the President has the authority to declare war. Many members saw the political blowback from their vote regarding the Iraq War, and Americans are tired of being drawn into endless conflicts. 
Q: What is the current status of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 – and what would you like to see happen to it? 
Ro Khanna: Both the House and Senate passed their versions of it, and now leadership needs to iron out a final bill. I’m glad that the bill mandates the Pentagon to rename military bases that are currently named after Confederate leaders. I also worked to include text barring funds appropriated for the military from being used against the Houthis in Yemen. Ultimately though, progressives weren’t able to garner enough votes to reallocate 10 percent of the budget toward domestic priorities like healthcare, the COVID response, and education. Though we got more than 90 votes, the military-industrial complex was once again able to influence members into voting for a bloated military budget. I’ve continually called for limiting our military budget and have voted against increasing military spending. We can’t keep pouring money into our military when there are glaring domestic issues that need to be addressed first. Our defense spending has grown in the last three years, while Flint still doesn’t have clean water, rural communities don’t have access to broadband, and working families are struggling to pay their bills during a pandemic. 
Q: Given the balance of power in Congress, what do you think the Democratic leadership should be doing in the midst of the pandemic emergency?
Ro Khanna: I think we need to listen to the experts and understand that this is not something that will go away just because we’re tired of being at home. Calling for all kids to be put back into schools is reckless and dangerous, and we’ve seen the disastrous fallout in states that reopened too soon without proper planning. We need to expand our testing capacity as well as be vigilant in our efforts to stop the spread of this virus. The desire to reopen in order to jumpstart our economy is noble, but we can’t put human lives on the line to accomplish that. Additionally, we have to protect our frontline workers, which is why I introduced an Essential Workers Bill of Rights with Senator [Elizabeth] Warren, as well as the Emergency Money for the People Act, which would give working families $2,000 a month for up to 12 months. 
Q: As the pandemic rages on, what are the short-term prospects for suitably gearing up the U.S. healthcare system in response? And how could this ongoing catastrophe affect possibilities for longer-term solutions like Medicare for All?
Ro Khanna: Firstly, we need to do everything we can to slow the spread. It’s frustrating to be confined in our homes, but if we are not diligent in slowing the spread of this virus, our healthcare system will be overrun once again. This pandemic has proven that if the government wants to subsidize healthcare, they can. I think this pandemic has shown a greater urgency for high quality, affordable healthcare. Nobody should be forced to risk their health because they could not afford healthcare. In both the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES Act, Congress waived the costs for testing and allocated money to cover the cost of treatment for uninsured patients. That simply demonstrates to me that the opposition for Medicare for All comes more from the health insurance industry than the voters. More people are starting to understand that Medicare for All is needed to stop the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. Affordable healthcare is a basic human right, and this pandemic has shown the importance of having an affordable, accessible healthcare system. 
Q: Overall, how would you describe the responses to proposals for a Green New Deal from members of Congress as well as from your own constituents?
Ro Khanna: Well unfortunately we still have a handful of climate-change deniers in the halls of Congress, but the science is clear: we must change our ways to stop global warming. The overwhelming response from my constituents is in support of adopting the Green New Deal quickly to stem the effects of climate change. Countries like China are winning the Green Race. I wrote an op-ed with former secretary of state John Kerry outlining our need to embrace clean energy. It’s the only way to move our country forward, from an environmental standpoint and an economic standpoint, and to address racial inequality in our country.
Q: As somebody who was one of the national co-chairs of the Bernie 2020 campaign, what would you say to people who are disheartened that the campaign fell short and now feel discouraged about prospects for turning the Democratic Party into a genuinely progressive force?
Ro Khanna: Don’t stop. We see you and we hear you. Your hard work is already beginning to yield results. In the elections since 2016, we’ve seen more progressive candidates enter Congress, and the Progressive Caucus is only going to grow. People are genuinely dissatisfied with the status quo and have demonstrated their desire for a set of fundamental changes in our country today. These policies that have been labeled as progressive are nothing new. Truman ran on Medicare for All and affordable education for all. If he could be elected president in the 1940s with those policies, there’s no reason we can’t finish enacting those policies today, and our numbers will continue to grow larger in the years to come.


Norman Solomon is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Solomon is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.









RSN: FOCUS: Noam Chomsky Responds to Trump Bragging He Aced a Dementia Test





Reader Supported News
26 July 20

Reader Supported News: For the 99%.
Most of us know that the mainstream media, primarily owned by the right, rigidly controls information and the message. It’s become increasingly difficult to get the truth, backed by scientific thinking, logic and common sense.
Reader Supported News provides reliable, factual information and informed opinion – and offers a forum to intelligently discuss the major issues that affect our lives.
Please help ensure that RSN will be around for a long, long time to do its job for us. Please consistently support RSN to the best of your ability, at whatever level you can afford.
Carol, RSN Reader-Supporter
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611




Reader Supported News
26 July 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


FOCUS: Noam Chomsky Responds to Trump Bragging He Aced a Dementia Test
Noam Chomsky. (photo: e-flux)
Democracy Now!
Excerpt: "Is the United States being run by a madman? 'What can you say about a person who, before speaking before an adoring crowd, raises his eyes to heaven and calls himself the chosen one?' says Noam Chomsky, responding to President Trump’s boast that he aced a mental acuity test." 

MY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. We are spending the hour with Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, and author, laureate professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years. Democracy Now!’s Nermeen Shaikh and I spoke to him Thursday.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to play for you what President Trump said on Fox News about the cognitive test he recently took, saying it was difficult.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I took a test. I said to the doctor, it was Dr. Ronny Jackson, I said “is there some kind of a test, an acuity test?” And he said, “There actually is,” and he named it, whatever it might be. And it was 30 or 35 questions. The first questions are very easy. The last questions are much more difficult, like a memory question. It’s like you’ll go “person, woman, man, camera, TV.” So they would say, “Could you repeat that?” So I said, “Yeah. So it’s person, woman, man, camera, TV.” “OK, that’s very good.” If you get it in order, you get extra points.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump saying he aced this test for dementia. He keeps talking about acing this cognitive test, a test that is given to see if someone is suffering from dementia, some kind of cognitive difficulties. This isn’t an IQ test. He continually goes back to it, even when told, “You’re asking to identify an elephant. You are being asked to draw a clock, to count back from 100 by sevens.” This is a test to see if a person is becoming senile. Is the United States being run by a madman, Noam Chomsky?
NOAM CHOMSKY: As you say, the test is given for dementia, incipient dementia, a serious mental illness. But what can you say about a person who, before speaking before an adoring crowd, raises his eyes to heaven and calls himself the chosen one? What can you say about an administration where the secretary of state says, “Perhaps Trump has been sent by the good lord to save Israel from Iran”? The country is being run by madmen.
There is no parallels to this. In fact, you can see it in everything that is happening. You go back to late March or so, the United States was about the same as Europe in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. It was roughly the same. Take a look at the chart since. Europe has sharply declined. It is not over the problems, not doing as well as Asia or Oceania, but way down. The United States remains stable. You look at the medical journals, they point out that Trump’s malfeasance and incompetence, whatever, just lack of concern for the welfare of the population, has killed maybe 100,000 people. That’s a pretty significant slaughter.
And that is why he is flailing around wildly to find somebody to blame it on. That is why he is using the current opportunity to send quasi-military forces, more or less paramilitary, to set up violent confrontations with Democratic mayors and governors. And there’s no precedent for sending militarized forces to control a city in opposition—when there is total opposition on the part of the mayor, the governor, the senators, obviously the population. This is treating the country like occupied territory, with the totally clear purpose of trying to set up confrontations which will somehow save him from electoral defeat.
And if there is defeat, he may just refuse to leave the White House, as he intimated on Fox News the other day, in which case you really have to ask, what happens next? Does the military move in and remove him? Or what happens when—or militias start surrounding the White House? We don’t know. This is a situation which has never arisen in a functioning democracy apart from the fascist takeovers in Italy and Germany, some other countries, in the interwar period.
Trump is sometimes, even by experts in the topic, called moving toward fascism. I think, frankly, that gives him much too much credit. Fascism was a serious ideology. I think it’s well beyond his ken or concern. This is more like a minor dictator in a small country that is subjected to military coups over the years. There is no conception of introducing real fascist ideology. In fact, in some ways, we are almost the opposite of it. The fascist systems were based on the principle that the powerful state under the leadership of the ruling party and the maximal leader should basically control everything. They should run and control the society, including the business community. We are almost the opposite. It is the business community controlling the government. And any infringement on their power would lead to a kind of confrontation that is almost unimaginable.
So I don’t think it is fascism. It is essentially tin-pot dictatorship. And he is desperate, will do anything, almost anything imaginable to try to keep himself from being tossed out of the White House. How this will eventuate, we don’t know, but it is going to be a very difficult couple of months ahead.








RSN: Bill McKibben | What Joe Biden's Climate Plan Really Signals




Reader Supported News
26 July 20

We are at 18 days of fundraising for February and we barely getting any traction. I have to do everything in my power to end this fundraiser. We need to you to help. This is “Reader Supported News.” It’s what we do and it works.
We need you to turn your attention to the July funding drive.
Please.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News


If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611



Reader Supported News
26 July 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

Bill McKibben | What Joe Biden's Climate Plan Really Signals
Bill McKibben. (photo: Wolfgang Schmidt)
Bill McKibben, The New Yorker
McKibben writes: "Non-élites—members of activist movements and renewable-energy engineers—have built the pressure. Assuming that Trump exits next year, and that high-level climate denial goes with him, that pressure will do what pressure does: finally start to make things pop."


hen Joe Biden issued his extensive climate plan last week, there were endless analyses, including mostly positive reviews like those from the energy expert Julian Brave NoiseCat, who called it “a Green New Deal in our view, substantively,” and the Sunrise Movement, which had graded Biden’s primary-season plan an F, but now says that he’s “talking the talk,” and that a post-election mobilization will insure that he’ll “walk the walk.” The main opposition came from President Trump, who insisted that Biden, in his zeal for energy efficiency, had called for abolishing windows.
I don’t want to go deeply into the details of the plan here, because chances are that few of the proposals will get enacted in their precise form, but they seem a truly useful compendium of the mainstream and obvious ideas for an energy and conservation transition. And they provide a good roadmap by which to steer, even if that map avoids the most controversial areas of the debate. (The plan is especially quiet about the efforts that will be necessary to limit mining and drilling for fossil fuels.) The best way to understand them, I think, is as a loud signal in the ever-louder conversation among élites about the trajectory and the pace of that transition.
 A big signal comes from the investment community, where banks have started announcing major losses in the hydrocarbon sector. Wells Fargo, for instance, said that forty-seven per cent of its nonperforming corporate loans last quarter were in the three per cent of its deal book devoted to oil and gas. News like that dramatically ups the odds that, say, a Federal Reserve under Biden might increase capital requirements for oil loans. Indeed, earlier this week, a consortium of investors with nearly a trillion dollars in assets urged the Fed to “explicitly integrate climate change across your mandates,” in particular, by providing more information about the financial risks that global warming now presents. On Monday, Morgan Stanley announced that it would rate all its investments for their climate impact—on the one hand, that puts off the necessary end of those investments, but it’s probably also a first signal of acquiescence to reality. And, of course, as big money starts to edge away from the industry, politicians feel less need to do its bidding.
I think we’ve already reached the point where it’s clear that real change is finally coming, and that fossil fuel’s main hope is to slow and shape that change. (Above all, as I wrote last week, the industry is hopeful that natural gas has a future, though new scientific findings and technologies seem to be closing in on even that facet of the business.) The crucial job of activists, then, is to always be demanding that we move faster.
If you want a really powerful signal, one came last week from Teen Vogue, which published an op-ed encouraging young people to not open accounts with banks that are reckless with the planet. (The authors’ “Not My Dirty Money” pledge can be found here.) Meanwhile, Greta Thunberg and fellow climate strikers sent an open letter to the European Union. (I am among the tens of thousands of people who signed onto it.) It says, “You must stop pretending that we can solve the climate and ecological crisis without treating it as a crisis.” Just the right signal, reminding politicians that a devastated climate is not merely an excuse for a jobs program, and at just the right volume. And if signals don’t replace action they do usually precede it—so consider this season a relatively hopeful one.
Passing the Mic
Passing the mic is difficult for me this week, because I can barely even sit up in bed. I fell off my two-wheeled, low-carbon transit device on Thursday, and managed to break six ribs and a shoulder blade, and incurred a severely separated shoulder. I’ve been in the hospital since, and that’s why this newsletter is shorter than usual. I am enormously grateful for all the get-well e-mails; they are a surprisingly good anesthetic. And, although it’s a pretty self-absorbed thing to do, perhaps I can refer you to a letter that I sent my colleagues in the climate movement last week, explaining my plans to do more mic-passing in the years to come.
Climate School
Important news from Al Gore, who has rallied a bunch of hard-chargers in the tech world behind plans for Climate TRACE, which stands for Tracking Real-time Atmospheric Carbon Emissions. The platform “will leverage advanced A.I., satellite-image processing, machine learning, and land- and sea-based sensors to do what was previously thought to be nearly impossible: monitor G.H.G. emissions from every sector and in every part of the world. Our work will be extremely granular in focus—down to specific power plants, ships, factories.” That data will be incredibly powerful: think C.S.I. for carbon.
From time to time, one hears from people contending that the “real cause” of climate change, and all other troubles, is overpopulation. The thinking is sometimes racist, but almost as often, I think, it’s rooted in a leftover understanding of demographic trends. Given a choice, women in most parts of the world are deciding to have far fewer kids than they used to, and the new projections for population circa 2100 are fascinating. It won’t be easy for policymakers to deal with a Japan that is half its present size, but doing so shouldn’t be impossible, either. Japan, after all, was half its present size less than a century ago.
Scoreboard
Even though writers hate to admit it, sometimes a picture (from a really talented photographer) is worth more than words. I’d read often that the enormous Lake Chilwa, in Malawi, is drying out more frequently because of climate change, but it took this image from reader Chris Dawe to really drive that reality home.
Warming Up
There are weeks when one really needs some uplift. That must be why Bill Withers recorded his concert at Carnegie Hall, in 1972.


READ MORE


Chief Justice John Roberts. (photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock)
Chief Justice John Roberts. (photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Shutterstock)

Roberts Indifference Towards Voting Rights on Full Display
Emmett Witkovsky-Eldred and Nina Totenberg, NPR
Excerpt: "Voting rights advocates are batting 0-4 at the U.S. Supreme Court so far this year."
READ MORE


A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million. (photo: Ted S. Warren/AP)
A trial of a potential coronavirus vaccine announced by Moderna in January. Since then, Moderna insiders have sold shares totaling about $248 million. (photo: Ted S. Warren/AP)

Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus Vaccine
David Gelles and Jesse Drucker, The New York Times
Excerpt: "On June 26, a small South San Francisco company called Vaxart made a surprise announcement: A coronavirus vaccine it was working on had been selected by the U.S. government to be part of Operation Warp Speed, the flagship federal initiative to quickly develop drugs to combat Covid-19."
READ MORE


Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)

Chicago Groups Sue to Bar Federal Agents From Protest Duties
Kathleen Foody, Associated Press
Foody writes: "A collection of Chicago activist groups want a judge to block federal agents sent to the city to combat violent crime from interfering in or policing protests, arguing in a lawsuit filed Thursday that the surge ordered by President Donald Trump will inhibit residents' ability to hold demonstrations."
READ MORE


Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)

Why the Superrich Keep Getting Richer
Grace Blakeley, Jacobin
Blakeley writes: "This week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual."


Billionaires like Jeff Bezos aren't obscenely wealthy because they work harder than everyone else or they're more innovative. They're obscenely wealthy because their corporate empires drain society's resources — and we'd all be better off without them.


his week, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw the largest single-day increase in wealth ever recorded for any individual. In just one day, his fortune increased by $13 billion. On current trends, he is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire by 2026.
Those on the right wing of politics argue that extreme wealth is a function of hard work, creativity, and innovation that benefits society. But wealth and income inequality have increased dramatically in most advanced economies in recent years. The richest of the rich are much wealthier today than they were several decades ago, but it is not clear that they are working any harder.
Mainstream economists make a more nuanced version of this argument. They claim that the dramatic increase in income inequality has been driven by the dynamics of globalization and the rise of “superstars.” Firms and corporate executives are now competing in a global market for capital and talent, so the rewards at the top are much higher — even as competition also constrains wages for many toward the bottom end of the distribution.
According to this view, high levels of inequality are a reward for high productivity. The most productive firms will attract more investment than their less productive counterparts, and their managers, who are performing a much more complex job than those managing smaller firms, will be rewarded accordingly.
But here again the narrative runs aground on contact with reality. Productivity has not risen alongside inequality in recent years. In fact, in the United States and the UK productivity has flatlined since the financial crisis — and in the United States, it has been declining since the turn of the century.
There is another explanation for the huge profits of the world’s largest corporations and the huge fortunes of the superrich. Not higher productivity. Not simply globalization. But rising global market power.
Many of the world’s largest tech companies have become global oligopolies and domestic monopolies. Globalization has played a role here, of course — many domestic firms simply can’t compete with global multinationals. But these firms also use their relative size to push down wages, avoid taxes, and gouge their suppliers, as well as lobbying governments to provide them with preferential treatment.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are a case in point. Amazon has become America’s largest company through anticompetitive practices that have landed it in trouble with the European Union’s competition authorities. The working practices in its warehouses are notoriously appalling. And a study from last year revealed Amazon to be one of the world’s most “aggressive tax avoiders.”
Part of the reason Amazon has to work so hard to maintain its monopoly position is that its business model relies on network effects that only obtain at a certain scale. Tech companies like Amazon make money by monopolizing and then selling the data generated from the transactions on their sites.
The more people who sign up, the more data is generated; and the more data generated, the more useful this data is for those analyzing it. The monetization of this data is what generates most of Amazon’s returns: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the most profitable part of the business by some distance.
Far from representing its social utility, Amazon’s market value — and Bezos’ personal wealth — reflects its market power. And the rising market power of a small number of larger firms has actually reduced productivity. This concentration has also constrained investment and wage growth as these firms simply don’t have to compete for labor, nor are they forced to innovate in order to outcompete their rivals.
In fact, they’re much more likely to use their profits to buy back their own shares, or to acquire other firms that will increase their market share and give them access to more data. Amazon’s recent acquisition of grocery store Whole Foods is likely to be the first of many such moves by tech companies. Rather than the Darwinian logic of compete or die, the tech companies face a different imperative: expand or die.
States are supporting this logic with exceptionally loose monetary policy. Low interest rates make it very easy for large companies to borrow to fund mergers and acquisitions. And quantitative easing — unleashed on an unprecedented scale to tackle the pandemic — has simply served to raise equity prices, especially for the big tech companies.
As more areas of our lives become subject to the power of big tech, the fortunes of people like Bezos will continue to mount. Their rising wealth will not represent a reward for innovation or job creation, but for their market power, which has allowed them to increase the exploitation of their workforces, gouge suppliers, and avoid taxes.
The only real way to tackle these inequities is to democratize the ownership of the means of production, and begin to hand the key decisions in our economy back to the people. But you would expect that even social democrats, who won’t pursue transformative policies, could get behind measures such as a wealth tax.
“Building back better” after the pandemic will be impossible without such a tax — and the vast majority of both Labour and Conservative voters support such an approach, according to a recent poll. And yet it appears that Labour’s leadership are retreating from the idea.
In an interview the other day, I was asked why we should care about Jeff Bezos’s wealth if it makes everyone else better off. But the extreme inequalities generated by modern capitalism are making obvious something that Marxists have known for decades: the superrich generate their wealth at the expense of workers, the planet, and society as a whole.

In a rational and fair society, the vast resources of a tiny elite would be put to use solving our social problems.
READ MORE



Bruce Springsteen - The Ghost of Tom Joad. (photo: YouTube)
Bruce Springsteen - The Ghost of Tom Joad. (photo: YouTube)

Sunday Song: Bruce Springsteen | The Ghost of Tom Joad
Bruce Springsteen, YouTube
Springsteen writes: "Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner. Welcome to the new world order."






Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the bridge
Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' 'round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the Southwest
No home no job no peace no rest
The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad
He pulls a prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and takes a drag
Waitin' for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
Got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and gun in your hand
Sleepin' on a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city aqueduct
The highway is alive tonight
Where it's headed everybody knows
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Waitin' on the ghost of Tom Joad
Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight against the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or a decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me. "

Well the highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad
READ MORE



GOP Ohio state Rep. Larry Householder, who is charged in the $60 million federal probe. (photo: John Minchillo/AP)
GOP Ohio state Rep. Larry Householder, who is charged in the $60 million federal probe. (photo: John Minchillo/AP)

They Spent Millions to Protect Polluters. Then They Got Busted by the FBI.
Rebecca Leber, Grist
Leber writes: "A year ago, the Ohio legislature rammed through a law to save four unprofitable nuclear and coal-fired power plants from retirement, while it rolled back energy efficiency and renewable targets and passed on the $1.3 billion cost to customers."
 Opponents of the HB6 law, which included an unlikely alliance of environmentalists and the natural gas industry, began to organize a referendum to repeal it, saying it amounted to a corporate bailout for the utility player FirstEnergy.
What ensued was an aggressive and bizarre counter-campaign launched by a set of mysterious actors that didn’t disclose their donors, all singularly focused on preventing the referendum from gathering enough signatures before its deadline. One single-issue group began running ads with false claims that the Chinese government had orchestrated the referendum. Another group, Generation Now, hired the Democratic firm Fieldworks to deploy “petition blockers” who stood near signature gatherers and tried to discourage people from signing the referendum. At one point there was a physical confrontation between a referendum staffer and a petition blocker, and police responded.
By October, it was clear the referendum failed to gather enough signatures, and the debate over the corporate bailout seemed settled — until Tuesday, when federal agents arrested the main architect of the law, Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, for a racketeering conspiracy. The FBI charged that Householder, his aide, a former Ohio GOP chair, two lobbyists, and Generation Now of a “conspiracy to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” The 82-page complaint outlines an enterprise that steered $61 million into campaign contributions to ensure Republicans gained control of the House, bribes, and shadowy groups all to pass and protect the controversial bailout.
The complaint never mentions by name the companies that drove this conspiracy. They are only Company A, B, and C, because of other ongoing investigations. But the identity of Company A, the primary actor that spent $60 million, is obvious enough for U.S. Attorney David DeVillers to say, “Everyone in this room knows who ‘Company A’ is,” in a press conference. It is FirstEnergy, the utility in the state that was the primary benefactor of the law.
The charges describe some especially egregious examples of quid-pro-quo politics, like a payoff for Householder’s Florida home and campaign financing for 21 Republican candidates. More importantly, we get a rare glimpse of how easy it is for corporations to subvert democracy simply by throwing tons of money at blocking ballot initiatives. When they do their work right, they can prevent an initiative from ever reaching a vote — without the public even realizing it could have been a choice.
Most of the $60 million from Company A did not go to bribes or to get the bill through the House and Senate, but was routed through Generation Now — which, because it’s a 501(c)(4),doesn’t have to disclose its donors. That group, the same one that orchestrated the counter-campaign to block the referendum from gathering enough signatures, used a fascinating tactic: There are only so many companies specialized in ballot signature-collecting in the country, and Generation Now bought out 15 of them so the referendum’s organizers couldn’t find any top-tier firms to work for them.
The complaint says: “Generation Now subverted the Ballot Campaign by hiring signature collection firms in an effort to conflict them from working for the Ballot Campaign.” Neil Clark, Householder’s staffer, “advised his clients that if they would retain as many of the signature collection firms as possible, then those firms could not work for their opposition, which would decrease the likelihood that the referendum would collect the requisite number oof signatures for a ballot initiative.” In one meeting the FBI recorded, he wired $450,000 to a firm repeating he had “hired them not to work.”
“The money really went to staging a coup of the Ohio state government,” says David Pomerantz, executive director of the utilities watchdog Energy and Policy Institute. That’s only one example of how hard utilities fight to block environmental initiatives at the ballot. In 2018, Arizona Public Service funded a campaign for town administrators to pass resolutions against Prop 127, which would have required APS generate half of its electricity from renewables. And in 2016, Florida Power and Light spearheaded a confusing ballot initiative that used deceptive language implying it would promote solar power — but really hindered the spread of rooftop solar.
“These tactics are fairly typical of what we see monopoly utilities do around the country,” he says. They have “limitless money and a captive customer base that has no choice but to pay what regulators say they have to pay every month.”
Ohio’s FirstEnergy bailout was so unpopular that in one part of the complaint, Householder’s aide Jeff Lonstreth texted his boss, “Polling shows the more we explain it, the worse it does.” The federal case means an unusual spotlight on common bad-faith tactics. And now there might be some justice: Many of the original backers of the law, including Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican from Ohio who signed it last year, reversed course this week and called for its repeal.








Donald Trump laughed at during UN speech










US President Donald Trump's assertion that his adminstration has achieved more than any other in history prompted chuckles at the UN General Assembly, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was not among those laughing.




LAUGHED AT








Laughed At | Joe Biden for President








The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls

    This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...